{"article":{"id":4649,"heading":"IRAQ: THE SANCTIONS REGIME IS CRACKING","author":"Tariq Aziz","created":"2000-11-20 17:59:16","modified":"2005-08-15 00:30:34","last_modified":"Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:30:34","article":"

IRAQ: THE SANCTIONS REGIME IS CRACKING

Speech by Tariq Aziz, Vice Prime Minister of Iraq.

Concluding remarks by Margareta Papendreou, former First Lady of Greece, and

head of the Papendreou delegation to Iraq.

Questions by delegation members Donn Lovett, Felicity Arbuthnot and Gregory

Elich.

Baghdad, November 12, 2000.

Transcribed and edited by Gregory Elich.

[Aziz] Madame Margareta Papendreou, ladies and gentlemen,

It's a great honor and pleasure for me to meet with you this evening,

and I apologize in the beginning for being a bit late, because we were busy

with the meeting of the follow-up and core committees of the Baghdad

conference. The Baghdad conference is dealing with the same subjects which

you are concerned about: that is, the embargo imposed on Iraq and continuous

aggression on Iraq, as well as the situation in Palestine and the

international issues which many freedom-lovers in the world are concerned

about. I welcome you on behalf of the people and leadership of Iraq, and

your courageous and significant trip to Baghdad to show solidarity with the

Iraqi people in those difficult circumstances. For our Greek friends, I am

not astonished, because historically the people of Iraq and the people of

Greece have had strong relations that go back millenniums. And in those

ages and last decades, we have had very good relations between our two

countries: relations in all fields, political and economic, cultural and

other fruitful fields of cooperation. So we know that the Greek people

carry the same feelings as many other friends in the world towards their

friends in Iraq. And I also welcome the American and Canadian participants,

and we hope that they will see this country as it is and make their own

conclusions about the situation separate from what they hear from the media

in the United States and Canada.

The question of the sanctions that have been imposed on Iraq has

gradually become an international issue. The Baghdad conference, which has

been meeting since 1999 regularly each six months - the main slogan of the

conference is that 'Aggression and the embargo on Iraq is an Arab and

international issue.' Because this case - the imposition of the embargo on

Iraq - is actually the result of the current international situation. As

all politicians know that before 1990, on very few occasions the United

Nations imposed sanctions on any country. There was the example of

Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, and there was the example of the apartheid regime in

South Africa. And when you compare those sanctions imposed on those two

countries in the seventies and the eighties; you compare them with the

sanctions imposed on Iraq, that's quite a pleasure because actually they

were mild sanctions and there wasn't a force behind imposing them. It was

left to the countries themselves and the world to implement those sanctions

or even not implement them. But since 1990, a number of sanctions have been

imposed by the Security Council and the so-called New World Order and the

Americans, using their power - military power, economic power, political

power and influence - to impose those sanctions. Around us, for instance,

in the Gulf waters there are warships, airplanes to prevent even ordinary

trips to Iraq, ordinary cargoes and interfere with them. So the situation

here is quite different.

You and your part of Europe have witnessed the sanctions imposed on

Yugoslavia, which created a lot of suffering in the Balkans. Therefore,

when we say that this embargo is an international issue, it is quit horrid.

It's not just anti-American propaganda. It's the truth. Had the

international scene been different, as it was before the nineties, maybe the

results would have been quite different. But this is the fact: that since

the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the so-called Cold War, a

new hot war and warm war has been imposed on many nations, and at the

forefront this nation: the people of Iraq.

Those sanctions continued for ten years, and I have to admit, frankly,

that we don't have any prospects for lifting them by a decision to be taken

by the Security Council. The Security Council is a body in which five

permanent members have the privilege of the veto. They can veto any

demarche towards easing or lifting the sanctions. There have been some

efforts in this regard by a number of countries; even permanent members of

the Security Council like France, Russia and China, and other non-permanent

members during the past few years. But on each occasion, those demarches

were blocked by the American veto, and supported by the British veto as

well. So, we are not expecting in the coming period that there will be a

decision taken by the Security Council to change this situation. In spite

of all the reports that were made by the humanitarian agencies, by United

Nations agencies and even by commissions which were created by the Security

Council itself, informing the Security Council about the sufferings of the

Iraqi people, and the deaths of millions of children, the deterioration of

the Iraqi economy, etc., etc. There has been a lot of material on that,

many of which as I said is either official or semi-official and the

paperwork of the Security Council. But in the end, the American veto

stopped any movement towards changing this situation.

Not only the situation in Iraq is not changing because of American

intransigence, but there are a lot of international situations which are of

the same character. Anyhow, this is a fact. But at the same time, in spite

of this hegemonic policy of the United States, there is something very, very

important. That is the will of the peoples of the world. First, there's

the will of the people of Iraq, who have been the victim of this situation.

The people of Iraq and the leadership of Iraq have decided from the very

beginning to protect their independence and sovereignty and dignity, and

they refused to yield to American pressure and to American blackmail. They

suffered, yes. But that price which is being paid by the people of Iraq is

worth their objectives: sovereignty, independence and dignity. But there is

also the will of other peoples. There are a number of facts in this

situation contrary to the position of the imperialists. The first fact,

which is global and humanitarian in nature, is that all free women and men

in this world don't support injustice. They don't support a policy which

inflicts death and suffering to other people. This is not the first case.

We remember quite well how the majority of the international public opinion

stood strongly against the war in Vietnam which they thought, rightly, was

an aggression and it led to death and destruction of a nation. And many,

many people in Europe, in Asia and Africa and Latin America, even in the

United States itself, they went to the streets and they denounced the

American aggression on Vietnam. We also witnessed the worldwide support for

the Palestinian issue: the support to the Palestinian people and its

legitimate struggle for independence and freedom. And so it is quite

obvious to us that all free women and men in the world sympathize with the

cause of Iraq for moral reasons and out of moral motives.

Of course, there is the power of propaganda, the power of the American

media which manipulates the facts. But there is an Arab saying which can

hardly be translated into English but might look understandable. That's

'The rope of lying is short.' Well, there has been ten years of lying about

the situation in Iraq, about the origins of the conflict, about the behavior

of this party or the other. But after ten years, a lot of facts have become

known to the peoples of the world, to the international community, and

especially to those who are keenly interested in such humanitarian

situations as the Iraqi situation. Therefore, in the last few years the

support to Iraq has been increasing and in this year it has been increasing

dramatically. And the flights to Baghdad - as your courageous decision to

come - are symbols of how the world feels towards Iraq and the suffering of

the Iraqi people, and how they feel against the American position, the

American intransigence, and the falsification even of the decisions they

make themselves in the Security Council. They speak about an air embargo

of civilian flights while such an embargo does not exist even in the

Security Council resolutions. But it was imposed as a de facto situation

after the Gulf war; and because of the American influence and American

blackmail to governments around us, it has become a de facto situation. But

gradually people started to revolt against it. They said, 'Well, there's no

embargo. Iraq has right to enjoy air flights like other nations in the

world. Why should the situation remain like that because the Americans and

British want it to be?' So gradually, one by one, in the Arab world, from

Europe, from Russia, from other parts of the world, people have come to Iraq

by planes against the American and British will, to protest against this

injustice and to show solidarity with their brethren in Iraq.

On the other hand, there is a fact. Iraq has been a good partner to

many nations in the world. In the eighties I was foreign minister of this

country, and I know what our relations were with countries from Japan to the

other side of Latin America - the western coast of Latin America. Our

relations - economic relations, cultural relations, political relations -

covered all continents; even the United States itself. And Iraq is rich

with its resources, and an active nation, so we know a lot of people, lot of

nations. Hundreds and thousands of people, companies, plants all over the

world have been working with Iraq and making legitimate profits. So, when

the embargo was imposed it was not only Iraq who lost in terms of money, but

the other partners of Iraq also have lost. Greece is an example, I think.

The business community in Greece knows very well how much its business was

in Iraq, and it was legitimate business, quite normal between nations, and

because of American policy this business has ceased to exist. The same in

Italy, Spain, France, Russia, China, India, Brazil and we can mention scores

of names. So one year, two years, five years, people were waiting that

there might be some change in the Security Council attitude towards Iraq.

Maybe this trip of this politician, this committee, made by the Security

Council is coming to find a solution, but in the end they find that there is

no change, that the American veto and the British veto are stopping any kind

of demarche towards a movement in this unacceptable situation which is

causing losses to the Iraqis as well as to our partners all over the world.

So people have become fed up with this situation and they say, 'Enough is

enough. Okay, we waited for you to change but in the end you are

intransigent. Then we have to act.' And people started to act.

Iraq is under sanctions. The Iraqi trade fair, which was an annual

occasion, used to receive a great number of participants in the past, before

the embargo. After the embargo, of course nobody came. We were not in the

mood of reopening this international fair, but I think four or five years

ago we decided to reopen it. This year, in the beginning of November, 1,500

and more international companies participated in this international fair.

Forty five countries from different continents participated in this fair

because simply people would like to do business with Iraq, which is quite

normal and legitimate, and they are not ready to wait for the American

government to change, because it's not going to change. So for moral

reasons, moral motives on the one hand, which is very important to us and

which is very strong and becoming more and more strong, and for the

legitimate interests, motives and objectives, the sanctions regime is

cracking.

Until now, the Americans and the British have not got the message.

Actually, the Americans are busy with the circus of their elections, but the

British government and especially those in the foreign office are getting

lately furious, you see. They are attacking everybody who's flying to Iraq.

Usually the British are supposed to be cool, except in this situation they

are becoming very hot and furious, attacking and even using bad words,

name-calling and other outrageous means to describe the initiatives taken by

governments and organizations and individuals. Many of them are very well

known to their communities as well as to the international community that

they are very well respected people, women and men, and when they take such

decisions to take a plane and come to Baghdad, they should have very good

reasons for that. But nevertheless, the British Foreign Office is becoming

furious and, as I said, resorting to outrageous language in describing the

situation. That's because they realize that their embargo is cracking, and

this has a significant result in the international situation.

Ten years ago, we have been listening to writers and analysts who would

tell us that history is over; that history from now on is the American

history. This is pax Americana. And what the Americans decide with their

close allies is the dictate of the present and the future. So those who are

realistic should accept the situation and those who do not accept it are

rogue nations. They used this word for a while, although they changed it

for a specific reason. Rogue nations. Now they realize that this new

imperialism is not working. It is still powerful. We have to admit that,

but it is not as powerful as they pictured it ten years or eight years or

five years ago. So the will of the people, the will of independence, the

will of justice among the international community is growing and forcing

itself on the international situation, and one of its important reflections

is seen here in Iraq.

Well, I apologize. I don't mean to turn this meeting into a political

lecture, but this is the situation as we see it and despite of our suffering

for the last ten years we feel that we have achieved something important.

Something important to us as well as to the international community, because

when a nation succeeds in refusing the dictate of imperialists, when a

nation succeeds in protecting, preserving its sovereignty, its independence

and dignity, that is an achievement.

I welcome you again on behalf of the people of Iraq and the leadership

of Iraq, and I hope that your visit will encourage us more to go in the

right direction. I hope that you will collect enough information about the

situation and to compare those information and the convictions you reach

about them with what you have been hearing from the manipulated media,

especially the United States and Canada, and make your own judgment. Free

judgment. This is very important when we speak about human rights. One of

the basic human rights is that you have the right to make your own judgment,

out of your own resources, not to buy judgments made by others which might

not be honest and true. So I hope that you will use this short visit to

know what is going on in this country and what the realities are. I thank

you once again for visiting us. You are welcome. I wish you a good stay,

and when you return my best regards to all your friends and families and

relatives. Thank you.

[Papendreou] I thought my speeches were over, but I'm glad to say just a

few words. It's very important to us to have this briefing from Mr. Aziz.

He's well known around the world for his ability to communicate, and his

kindness and his appreciation of everything that other people do for this

country. So I think that this is a fit almost ending - we have tomorrow

morning yet - of what has been a very important visit, and very significant

for those of us who want to go back and communicate these things in our own

countries. We have a rich arsenal of material now and we were fortunate

also to have the best of our mass media from Greece covering this event. So

I'm sure - apart from what they have been sending these days - we will be

seeing for some days, information and pictures and images of this trip. And

we want to use the mass media to tell the truth - not to manipulate people.

So with that I will say thank you so much for coming on the part of all of

us. I think I should mention too that we have a good delegation from Great

Britain in our group and they're very active. Some of them are staying on

for some days, so they will continue to find out the things that maybe we

weren't able to get at during the short time, but we can always bring

another plane. So thank you.

[Moderator] Ladies and gentlemen, my dear Madame Papendreou,

She said it all. So, in your name we thank very, very much Mr. Tariq

Aziz for his eloquent way of explaining our situation. Thank you very much

Mr. Tariq Aziz. Any questions or comments?

[Lovett] It's Donn Lovett from Canada. Mr. Aziz, could you confirm to the

delegations who are here the urgency of what needs to be done once we

return, because it's my understanding that last night there was another

attack in Basra by a U.S. plane that hit a school, injuring four children

and three teachers, one of whom was a women. (1) Could you confirm that

please?

[Aziz] Well, there is an economic embargo as you know, which is very well

known and it has been publicized largely - the international media,

especially the independent or semi-independent media - but that is the

continuous military aggression on Iraq by the Americans and the British. In

their Security Council resolutions, there is no mention of a no-fly zone in

Iraq. The war ceased in the end of February 1991, and there was no air

embargo or so-called no-fly zone in the country. In April, the Americans

and the British, with the participation of France at that time, imposed a

no-fly zone in the north. And then, in August 1992, they imposed another

one in the south. In 1996, the French withdrew from the north, and in 1998

they withdrew from the south, and the Anglo-Americans only remained imposing

this no-fly zone. While we criticized this, we objected to it, we wrote

letters, messages to the Secretary General of the United Nations, to the

Security Council, to no avail. They remained. In December 1998, the

Americans and the British alone, without any authorization from the Security

Council, conducted an attack against Iraq, as it's well known. Missile and

air attack. And so, we decided since then to challenge by military means -

whatever military means available to us - this no-fly zone, because it's a

clear, outrageous infringement on our sovereignty. It aims at dividing Iraq

into three parts: the north, the south and the middle. So since then the

Americans and the British have been attacking Iraq - attacking military and

civilian targets, and killing, as the example you just mentioned.

Now, in the first years after the imposition of this embargo, there was

a large silence about it. People didn't know about it, and did not complain

about it, except Iraq, which was only one voice in this wilderness. But

since 1998, especially, and after the withdrawal of France from the southern

no-fly zone, three permanent members in the Security Council are saying,

quite clearly, that this is not a decision by the Security Council. This is

illegitimate. It's illegal. It's a unilateral decision by the

Anglo-Americans and many, many countries, governments, organizations are

saying that. So, we have, out of moral and legal reasons, to struggle

against this no-fly zone and to stop the killing. Stop the killing, which

is taking place and destruction which is taking place against Iraq, as well

as the struggle against the economic sanctions. I think these two

objectives are very important, and I hope that all free women and men in the

world would participate in this legitimate struggle.

[Arbuthnot] First of all, I wanted to say that, thanks to the Herculean

efforts of Madame Papendreou, after 44 journeys up and down the Baghdad road

in the last ten years, I finally flew in yesterday, and it was a day I

thought I'd never see. I'm still recovering from the shock. I've written

over the years about the horrors I find every time I come here. There's

something new, because as the infrastructure collapses - it's not just the

collapse of the infrastructure. People make home-made lamps to see by

because the electricity goes off and so, there's an epidemic of burns and

the water gets worse, and as children recover they go back to the water

system that made them worse in the first place. All through blocked

contracts.

However, what I found this time - I came to a country, and for the first

time I found hope. I saw the windows were cleaned and the shops gleaming

cleaned, and that shutters had been repainted. Everybody is saying to me,

'We did it. You know, it's getting better. The flights are coming in.'

And everyone says, 'Every time another flight comes in, there's tears in our

eyes.' And this is incredible. The embargo is crumbling from within, as

has been predicted by Iraq for a long time.

However, as I understand it, your Excellency, today was a decision with

[UN General Secretary] Kofi Annan about son of UNSCOM [United Nations

Special Commission] coming back in. The new UNSCOM. And in spite of the

interview you were kind enough to give me about 18 months ago, and you said,

'Lift the embargo and send the weapons inspectors back in.' But subsequent

to that, it has been discovered that - the depth, if you will, of the games

that UNSCOM has played. I wouldn't second-guess Iraq. However, it seems to

me that the likelihood of them ever, ever, ever being allowed in again and

the same [unintelligible] game is slim or nil. And anyway, 1284 talks about

suspending, not lifting the embargo.

Given that Britain and America have now boxed themselves in, given that

there is no way, short of bombing the airport, that they can stop this

unstoppable flow of flights and the unravelling of the embargo, do you think

that this is an option? Will they use the refusal, if this happens, of the

new UNSCOM coming in as an excuse to bomb Iraq again, with the airport as

the first target? And my final comment: if so, they would be beneath

contempt. I think two rogue states, and I wondered what your thoughts were.

[Aziz] Well, Madame, as you know, in that resolution there were conditions

very hard. Unprecedented conditions imposed on Iraq. Nevertheless, in

order to avoid more destruction and in order to get rid of the sanctions

which were imposed, we implemented that resolution and we worked with the

Security Council and with UNSCOM for seven and a half years, from April 1991

to December 1998. Hoping that there will be a change in the regime of

sanctions to the benefit of the people of Iraq, but for seven and a half

years this did not happen. UNSCOM, as I said, worked for this very, very

long period, destroying arms, destroying firms and industries, inspecting

each and every place in the country. Even monasteries. Even mosques. Even

kindergartens, not to speak of industries and military camps. They

collected millions of documents. They interviewed thousands of officials in

all walks of life, and in the end they said, 'We have not finished our job.'

In the last month, when they were working here between the 15th of November

and the 15th of December, they conducted more than 400 activities: different

inspections, interviews, flights, etc. There was a disagreement between

Iraq and UNSCOM on four events only. Four activities. If you calculate the

figures, you will realize that the degree of cooperation between Iraq and

UNSCOM was 99 percent positively, because there were more than 400 and the

disagreement was about four events, activities. In any case, when you reach

the degree of 99 positive, you'd be recommended, given a medal, given thank

you at least. We got bombs and missiles. Because the Anglo-Americans

interpreted the situation and that was a lack of cooperation. That Iraq

failed to cooperate with UNSCOM because only four activities were not

implemented, and the other 400 were perfectly done.

Well, you know, you are women and men of the world. You know what was

happening in December 1998. It was the Monica Lewinsky scandal. So the

bombing of Iraq was not because of the interpretation of UN resolutions. It

was not because of the failure of Iraq's cooperation with UNSCOM. It was

because of an individual situation encompassing the American president.

Nevertheless, he did it. He did it. In the front of the whole

international community, and another supposedly civilized nation, Britain,

participated in that crime against our country. So this shows that the

question is not international law. The question is not the implementation

of UN resolutions. The question is the American policy against Iraq. Until

now, the American administration says, flagrantly, and invests millions of

dollars, in its attempt to topple the patriotic leadership of Iraq. They

make it clear. And when people ask them - journalists in press

conferences - what about UN resolutions, they say, 'The Iraqi government has

to implement all UN resolutions, but the Iraqi government should change and

another government should come.' So this is a vicious circle. How could

you deal with such circumstances?

Therefore, resolution 1284 is not a solution. We read it from A to Z.

You don't find a solution in it. The promise of suspension is a vague

promise, and it could last for decades without being achieved. They

deliberately created this mess. Three permanent members in the Security

Council did not vote for that resolution, which is significant because they

had serious reasons for that. That's not a solution. Therefore, the new

UNSCOM or the new body which was created by the Security Council is called

UNMOVIC [UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission] is not

coming back to Iraq. What should be done now is lifting the sanctions.

Lifting the sanctions. That is the decision that has to be made. We are

not expecting the Security Council to take it. But it will be done. It

will be done by the will of the people of the world. By the will of the

freedom lovers. By the will of those nations who are suffering from the

embargo, as the Iraqis are suffering. In spite of all the power of the

United States, the United States is not God. It's not the Almighty. It's

an imperialist force. It can inflict a lot of mischief, but it's not the

Almighty. Therefore, we will continue our struggle to preserve, as I've

said, our sovereignty, and dignity and our national interests.

[Elich] I have two questions. The first question is: Soon the pipeline to

Syria will resume pumping oil. Has there been any interference by the West

in this plan? My second question: Last month, Iranian foreign minister

Kamal Karrazi visited Baghdad. I'm interested to know what issues were

discussed, and what do you see as the prospects for better relations with

Iran?

[Aziz] Well, as regards the first question, until now to my knowledge, the

pipeline is working or is near to be working. There were some vague

statements by the Americans and the British. The West in general has

nothing to do with this question. But they could not stop it, because this

is a legitimate dealing between neighborly nations. Syria has serious

economic stakes in Iraq, and we do have the same interests also in Syria,

and our dealing with Syria is quite legitimate.

As regards Iran, there are some complications in this matter, you see.

There has been a war, which lasted for eight years, and wars bring their own

consequences and complications. The most painful result of that war, which

is still existing, is the situation of the Iraqi prisoners of war in Iran.

(2) This has not yet been resolved. And we hope that after the visit of Mr.

Karrazi to Baghdad, which was a positive one, that we will find a way to

restore all our prisoners of war. Some of them have been there for 20

years. Twenty years, because the war started in 1980, ended in 1988, and

now we are living in the late 2000. So, we hope that the Iranians will

cooperate faithfully and resolve this humanitarian, painful issue. There

are other political, let us say economic, issues. They are not of the same

importance to us as the humanitarian one, but we hope by good faith and by

reasonable efforts to solve them. I cannot give you a definitive answer,

yes or no, because the process is still going on, and we hope that, as I

said, good faith will prevail in the end.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------

1.) At 12:15 PM on November 12, Western warplanes fired four missiles at the

village of Hmaidi in the southern province of Basra. One of the missiles

struck the Ali Al-Hayaini school, wounding four children and three teachers.

Several houses were also damaged in the attack.

2.) Iraq also holds Iranian prisoners of war. An additional problem is

armed exile groups operating from each country. On November 10, the Iraqi

and Iranian foreign ministers met for follow-up talks in Qatar and agreed to

work toward full normalization of relations. Five joint committees will be

established to further the process.



<\/p>\n","contact":"gelich@worldnet.att.net","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/plain","summary":"Vice Prime Minister of Iraq Tariq Aziz analyzes sanctions and Western policy","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2000\/11\/iraq__the_.txt","filesize":"29.3 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2000\/11\/4649.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}